Caledonia
An earthquake can happen anywhere on earth. Japan Nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION Fukushima Meltdown Radioactive FALLOUThttp://www. youtube. com/watch? v=LvC4WQrQw…Explosion at Japan nuke plant, disaster toll riseshttp://www. newstimes. com/news/article/Sh…BREAKING: EXPLOSION ROCKS NUCLEAR PLANT AT FUKUSHIMA
Grady
INJURIES, PLUMES OF SMOKE, WALLS COLLAPSEDhttp://www. bradblog. com/?p=8390
Carlisle
I already knew they were a bad idea. Nuclear energy is uneconomical compared to other sources. Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existence. The waste problem hasn't been solved. Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, together with plutonium is terrible because it behind be used grate on nerves make bombs. Nuclear reactors are predisposed to have accidents beside autocratic consequences for humanitarianism. (Doesn't sire to be decamp an earthquake.)Radiation retreat manipulation atomic reactors, uranium mining plus additional atomic activities mutilation selflessness. Energy forced to prove false generated locally moderately than by important knack stations. The risk grate on nerves an discontinuous informed on harm from a nuclear mishap is an unconsidered risk, as compared grate on nerves the much larger risk from propelling a vehicle, which is uncoerced. I am sickened to listen the bad info retire Japan. The pictures on tap Bradblog are brutal, alongside that whole building suddenly gone. You can see the belching forth hint at the video. Thanks in the matter of posting the urls. Hey, if you guys are all so mad as a March hare about them, push them in YOUR neighborhood, inevitably mine. fh
Ducor
No, actually, this shows how safe nuclear power actually is in tectonically stable areas. People have known for years that nuclear power in Japan, which sits on the ring of fire, is not really a good idea. If they wanted to do it correctly, they should have basically built better quality nuclear reactors (which do exist). But, I am sure they cut corners, to save money. That's the Japanese way. They knew very well they were taking a risk when they built the reactors, which is why they are right on the coast, where the fallout would predominately travel across the pacific ocean. Fortunately, from what I am reading, they have been able to keep the radiation level relatively low. (Although, what you read, and the truth are often two completely different things.) Overall, for the power it generates, nuclear is very safe, and can be made much safer in the future. So, again, my answer is no.
Avenal
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We are literally playing with fire. The accident at the Three Mile Island and the melt-down in Chernobyl had nothing to do with earthquakes. It costs over $2 billion to build a reactor and we still have not figured out how to safely store the radioactive rods. An old technology from the days of Cold War that is neither safe or cheap. In the era of Internet, there are decentralized technologies we can use to collect energy.
Ridgefield Park
No. Nuclear power still remains the safest and cleanest form of energy. All your options simply won't even work on the scale necessary to replace nuclear. We do need to pour money into energy research and we are, but we will likely never replace nuclear. Just as Chernobyl was not a good reason to get rid of nuclear plants neither was this. That there has not been a full blown meltdown resulting in thousands of deaths and serious radiation exposure just shows us how safe nuclear energy is under the worst conditions.
Grand Cane
No. How many people die in car accidents every year? NOW are you convinced drilling for oil is a bad idea? How many explosions are caused by natural gas every year? NOW are you convinced natural gas use is a bad idea? As soon as you figure out an effective, safe and profitable way to produce energy, let us know about it. We don't even know yet what's going on in Japan, there are no clear answers at the moment. Why don't we wait before you go around crying the sky is falling.
Hurley
You don't get to isolate one plant that was simply put in the wrong place as a way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reality just does not work that way. If you had asked the question, "Why isn't every single person who signed off on putting a nuclear power plant in one of the most seismically active places in the world PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW?" I'd have been on the same page with you. Using a bad example of something with which to form an argument against that thing just doesn't work.
Arrow Point
It proves how stupid humans really are. The Japanese considered one of the most engineering wise people on earth that building a nuke plant in a quake zone only needs to be built to the standards of the "average" quake strength not build it for "the big one".Fear not though when it melts down and begins to burn a hole in the earths crust the nearby sea will hopefully rush in to extinguish it.
Newberry
No, though building them on faultlines is probably not a great idea. They're still probably the least bad option, and almost certainly the cheapest, for electricity generation in the medium term.
Burlington
Show me where thorium is as volatile as Uranium and I will say that nuclear power is not the future. But you won't be able to do that. Thorium based nuclear energy is the best option out there by a long shot.
St. Elizabeth
Do you have a suggestion for a source of power that would be available in the amounts we need to support our economy? I am aware that it took an 8.9 quake to do this, how many of those have we had?
Browning
no. driving a car is 19 times more deadly than flying. NOW are you conviced that driving is a bad idea???typical liberal pap.
Green River
Near or on fault lines yes, other then that they are a proven source of safe energy for the USA. Other countries may be stupid, but we have been using nuclear power for many decades safely.
Hawaiian Acres
No, an 8.9 earthquake cannot happen anywhere on earth. You get to list this one under "shyte happens".
Chokoloskee
No. Some idiot stuck in in JAPAN. Seismically active. It took an 8.9 to take that sucker out. Largest one that nation has ever seen.
Everson
You make the same for building anything which would be dumb in my eyes.
Corning
No. We need power. Solar and wind isn't going to cut it.
La Salle
No.
Espino
No.
Sebastian
Nope
Cottage Grove
no
Showing posts with label japan nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label japan nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Japan nuclear reactors?
Ottawa
Why can't we just throw a giant ice cube in there. I mean, it's gunna melt, but the water will still be cold. And cool down the reactor.
Moorhead
It's an interesting idea, although the ice would melt very quickly the water may remain cool long enough for more sea-water pumped into it. Or liquid nitrogen being dumped on the reactors is another interesting idea. But it would take a lot regardless, everything that can be done is being done and with the United States and South Korea both sending help to neutralize the threat there would most likely be no need for a massive block of ice. But again, very interesting idea.
Hickory Valley
I think you can actually cause problems by cooling it down too quickly. One of the concerns with chernobyl was that the nuclear magma from the molten reactor core would come in contact with ground water. If that had happened it would have contaminated the ground water over a large area. There was also roughly a 10% chance that the direct contact with water would cause a nuclear chain reaction and turn most of Europe into a nuclear fallout zone (uninhabitable). Reactor cores have a lot more stuff in them than the Hiroshima bomb did. A nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear plant is absolutely devastating. Chernobyl was a mox reactor, which means that it has plutonium and uranium in its core. Mox reactors can produce more energy and pollution if they leak. Reactors generally don't leak and most if not all reactors are designed a lot better than Chernobyl was. We learned a lot from that disaster. btw. anyone who tells you only 50 people died from chernobyl is either wrong or lieing. No one knows exactly how many people died because of Chernobyl but I've seen figures as high as 1 million. The original soviet report said 50, but that was a lie. It could have been a lot worse. The Soviets that gave their lives to prevent the worst case from happening are heroes. Some are still alive, but none of them are uneffected from the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. All this said, we know a lot about how to deal with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl would have turned the world into a much different place if we didn't. The soviets dropped sandbags, boric acid and lead on the magma to contain the contamination. They dug out a section under the power plant and filled it with concrete to prevent the magma from entering the water supply. They built a sarcophagus around the plant to reduce how much radiation escaped the plant into the atmosphere.
Lakeview North
They are doing something similar to that. However the water instantly turns to steam faster than they can put more water in.
Germantown
Tell me where you are gonna find a giant 500 ton block of ice that can be transported 5,000+miles across the ocean. It would take A LOT of ice to cool down a massive atomic reactor.
Westwood
5000 degrees ice would last 10 seconds
Pearisburg
nah that wont work, you need more like a giant slurpee to cool that down.
Brookfield
not that easy
Waldo
http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=CD2LRROpph0
Amazonia
um....how is that possible. i know ur trying to help but we have to think more realisticly.
Why can't we just throw a giant ice cube in there. I mean, it's gunna melt, but the water will still be cold. And cool down the reactor.
Moorhead
It's an interesting idea, although the ice would melt very quickly the water may remain cool long enough for more sea-water pumped into it. Or liquid nitrogen being dumped on the reactors is another interesting idea. But it would take a lot regardless, everything that can be done is being done and with the United States and South Korea both sending help to neutralize the threat there would most likely be no need for a massive block of ice. But again, very interesting idea.
Hickory Valley
I think you can actually cause problems by cooling it down too quickly. One of the concerns with chernobyl was that the nuclear magma from the molten reactor core would come in contact with ground water. If that had happened it would have contaminated the ground water over a large area. There was also roughly a 10% chance that the direct contact with water would cause a nuclear chain reaction and turn most of Europe into a nuclear fallout zone (uninhabitable). Reactor cores have a lot more stuff in them than the Hiroshima bomb did. A nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear plant is absolutely devastating. Chernobyl was a mox reactor, which means that it has plutonium and uranium in its core. Mox reactors can produce more energy and pollution if they leak. Reactors generally don't leak and most if not all reactors are designed a lot better than Chernobyl was. We learned a lot from that disaster. btw. anyone who tells you only 50 people died from chernobyl is either wrong or lieing. No one knows exactly how many people died because of Chernobyl but I've seen figures as high as 1 million. The original soviet report said 50, but that was a lie. It could have been a lot worse. The Soviets that gave their lives to prevent the worst case from happening are heroes. Some are still alive, but none of them are uneffected from the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. All this said, we know a lot about how to deal with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl would have turned the world into a much different place if we didn't. The soviets dropped sandbags, boric acid and lead on the magma to contain the contamination. They dug out a section under the power plant and filled it with concrete to prevent the magma from entering the water supply. They built a sarcophagus around the plant to reduce how much radiation escaped the plant into the atmosphere.
Lakeview North
They are doing something similar to that. However the water instantly turns to steam faster than they can put more water in.
Germantown
Tell me where you are gonna find a giant 500 ton block of ice that can be transported 5,000+miles across the ocean. It would take A LOT of ice to cool down a massive atomic reactor.
Westwood
5000 degrees ice would last 10 seconds
Pearisburg
nah that wont work, you need more like a giant slurpee to cool that down.
Brookfield
not that easy
Waldo
http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=CD2LRROpph0
Amazonia
um....how is that possible. i know ur trying to help but we have to think more realisticly.
Japan nuclear reactors?
Ottawa
Why can't we just throw a giant ice cube in there. I mean, it's gunna melt, but the water will still be cold. And cool down the reactor.
Moorhead
It's an interesting idea, although the ice would melt very quickly the water may remain cool long enough for more sea-water pumped into it. Or liquid nitrogen being dumped on the reactors is another interesting idea. But it would take a lot regardless, everything that can be done is being done and with the United States and South Korea both sending help to neutralize the threat there would most likely be no need for a massive block of ice. But again, very interesting idea.
Hickory Valley
I think you can actually cause problems by cooling it down too quickly. One of the concerns with chernobyl was that the nuclear magma from the molten reactor core would come in contact with ground water. If that had happened it would have contaminated the ground water over a large area. There was also roughly a 10% chance that the direct contact with water would cause a nuclear chain reaction and turn most of Europe into a nuclear fallout zone (uninhabitable). Reactor cores have a lot more stuff in them than the Hiroshima bomb did. A nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear plant is absolutely devastating. Chernobyl was a mox reactor, which means that it has plutonium and uranium in its core. Mox reactors can produce more energy and pollution if they leak. Reactors generally don't leak and most if not all reactors are designed a lot better than Chernobyl was. We learned a lot from that disaster. btw. anyone who tells you only 50 people died from chernobyl is either wrong or lieing. No one knows exactly how many people died because of Chernobyl but I've seen figures as high as 1 million. The original soviet report said 50, but that was a lie. It could have been a lot worse. The Soviets that gave their lives to prevent the worst case from happening are heroes. Some are still alive, but none of them are uneffected from the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. All this said, we know a lot about how to deal with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl would have turned the world into a much different place if we didn't. The soviets dropped sandbags, boric acid and lead on the magma to contain the contamination. They dug out a section under the power plant and filled it with concrete to prevent the magma from entering the water supply. They built a sarcophagus around the plant to reduce how much radiation escaped the plant into the atmosphere.
Lakeview North
They are doing something similar to that. However the water instantly turns to steam faster than they can put more water in.
Germantown
Tell me where you are gonna find a giant 500 ton block of ice that can be transported 5,000+miles across the ocean. It would take A LOT of ice to cool down a massive atomic reactor.
Westwood
5000 degrees ice would last 10 seconds
Pearisburg
nah that wont work, you need more like a giant slurpee to cool that down.
Brookfield
not that easy
Waldo
http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=CD2LRROpph0
Amazonia
um....how is that possible. i know ur trying to help but we have to think more realisticly.
Why can't we just throw a giant ice cube in there. I mean, it's gunna melt, but the water will still be cold. And cool down the reactor.
Moorhead
It's an interesting idea, although the ice would melt very quickly the water may remain cool long enough for more sea-water pumped into it. Or liquid nitrogen being dumped on the reactors is another interesting idea. But it would take a lot regardless, everything that can be done is being done and with the United States and South Korea both sending help to neutralize the threat there would most likely be no need for a massive block of ice. But again, very interesting idea.
Hickory Valley
I think you can actually cause problems by cooling it down too quickly. One of the concerns with chernobyl was that the nuclear magma from the molten reactor core would come in contact with ground water. If that had happened it would have contaminated the ground water over a large area. There was also roughly a 10% chance that the direct contact with water would cause a nuclear chain reaction and turn most of Europe into a nuclear fallout zone (uninhabitable). Reactor cores have a lot more stuff in them than the Hiroshima bomb did. A nuclear chain reaction in a nuclear plant is absolutely devastating. Chernobyl was a mox reactor, which means that it has plutonium and uranium in its core. Mox reactors can produce more energy and pollution if they leak. Reactors generally don't leak and most if not all reactors are designed a lot better than Chernobyl was. We learned a lot from that disaster. btw. anyone who tells you only 50 people died from chernobyl is either wrong or lieing. No one knows exactly how many people died because of Chernobyl but I've seen figures as high as 1 million. The original soviet report said 50, but that was a lie. It could have been a lot worse. The Soviets that gave their lives to prevent the worst case from happening are heroes. Some are still alive, but none of them are uneffected from the high levels of radiation they were exposed to. All this said, we know a lot about how to deal with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl would have turned the world into a much different place if we didn't. The soviets dropped sandbags, boric acid and lead on the magma to contain the contamination. They dug out a section under the power plant and filled it with concrete to prevent the magma from entering the water supply. They built a sarcophagus around the plant to reduce how much radiation escaped the plant into the atmosphere.
Lakeview North
They are doing something similar to that. However the water instantly turns to steam faster than they can put more water in.
Germantown
Tell me where you are gonna find a giant 500 ton block of ice that can be transported 5,000+miles across the ocean. It would take A LOT of ice to cool down a massive atomic reactor.
Westwood
5000 degrees ice would last 10 seconds
Pearisburg
nah that wont work, you need more like a giant slurpee to cool that down.
Brookfield
not that easy
Waldo
http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=CD2LRROpph0
Amazonia
um....how is that possible. i know ur trying to help but we have to think more realisticly.
Can the japan nuclear reactor effect vancouver canada?
Winona
I live near a beach in Vancouver, Canada. If radiation was released, is there any chance of radiation coming to Vancouver? I'm really paranoid and frightened, as I'm not sure what to do. Stephen Harper says Canada isn't in any risk, but I'm not too sure about that. Please give me good answers, nothing stupid at all. Thank you.
South Whittier
Don't be too scared. I think you're making it worse in your mind. There is a chance of radiation getting there, as there are small traces ofradiation in illinois, but not enough to hurt you now. Radiation doesn't get more powerful and it doesn't grow. By the time it gets to you, it has dissipated enough to not harm you. Still, no one knows just how bad it is yet because I'm not so sure anyone is telling the whole truth just yet, but don't scare yourself.
Westbrook Center
Everyone is saying that it will have MINIMUM effect on us here in Vancouver. I don't like it at all. I believe will will get trace amounts for a long time and it will effect your children and our food chain. NOT GOOD, i believe we should all be frightened and mad.
Rickardsville
I think you are building a unpleasant picture in your mind. It will not have any affect on you your too far away
New Stanton
Yes. It can reach all over the world with the right wind patterns. Ever heard of acid rain??
I live near a beach in Vancouver, Canada. If radiation was released, is there any chance of radiation coming to Vancouver? I'm really paranoid and frightened, as I'm not sure what to do. Stephen Harper says Canada isn't in any risk, but I'm not too sure about that. Please give me good answers, nothing stupid at all. Thank you.
South Whittier
Don't be too scared. I think you're making it worse in your mind. There is a chance of radiation getting there, as there are small traces ofradiation in illinois, but not enough to hurt you now. Radiation doesn't get more powerful and it doesn't grow. By the time it gets to you, it has dissipated enough to not harm you. Still, no one knows just how bad it is yet because I'm not so sure anyone is telling the whole truth just yet, but don't scare yourself.
Westbrook Center
Everyone is saying that it will have MINIMUM effect on us here in Vancouver. I don't like it at all. I believe will will get trace amounts for a long time and it will effect your children and our food chain. NOT GOOD, i believe we should all be frightened and mad.
Rickardsville
I think you are building a unpleasant picture in your mind. It will not have any affect on you your too far away
New Stanton
Yes. It can reach all over the world with the right wind patterns. Ever heard of acid rain??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)